Wakilii

Uganda Law Society and Another v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha and Others (Civil Application 99 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 320 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal, heard by a single Justice of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed as incompetent and unmerited; each party to bear own costs except the 3rd Respondent's costs awarded against the Applicants.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A single Justice dismissed the Uganda Law Society's application for stay of execution of High Court declaratory orders pending Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2025. Held: the application was incompetent for offending Rule 42(1) because it was not first determined in the High Court; the applicants' premature withdrawal of their High Court application, on mere apprehension of delay before a judge was assigned, did not constitute the exceptional circumstances justifying direct recourse to the Court of Appeal. The 3rd Respondent was irregularly joined without leave. On the merits, self-executing declaratory orders are incapable of being stayed, the applicants showed no irreparable damage, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

Facts

The Uganda Law Society (1st Applicant) held elections in September 2024. Its President, Isaac Ssemakadde, purported to expel the Attorney General and Solicitor General, statutory Council members under s.9 of the Uganda Law Society Act, from Council. The Secretary (2nd Respondent) then purported to expel the President and Vice President, and the President's faction in turn suspended the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and appointed the 2nd Applicant, Eddie Nangulu, as Interim Secretary. The 1st Respondent filed Misc. Cause No. 263 of 2024 challenging these decisions; the High Court quashed them as ultra vires and illegal, holding that the Council must act as a whole, and reinstated the affected members. The Applicants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2025) and sought a stay so they could convene an extraordinary general meeting to elect Judicial Service Commission representatives. They had first filed a stay application in the High Court (M.A. No. 135 of 2025) but withdrew it citing delay in assigning a judge after the trial judge's elevation, then filed the present application directly in the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was competent having been filed directly in the Court of Appeal without first being determined in the High Court contrary to Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether special or exceptional circumstances existed to justify filing the stay application directly in the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the advocates and deponents had authority to institute the application and swear affidavits on behalf of the 1st Applicant.
  4. Whether the 3rd Respondent was properly added as a party to the application without leave of court.
  5. Whether self-executing declaratory orders are capable of being stayed by execution.
  6. Whether the Applicants satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution, namely likelihood of success, irreparable damage or a nugatory appeal, and balance of convenience.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the application is incompetent for offending Rule 42(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules upheld.
  • Objection on want of authority to institute the application overruled.
  • Objection on adding the 3rd Respondent as a party without leave of court upheld.
  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs, save for the costs of the 3rd Respondent which are awarded against the Applicants.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Concurrent Jurisdiction — Rule 42(1) Court of Appeal Rules
Where an application for stay of execution may be made in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, it must first be made in the High Court, and the Court of Appeal will entertain it directly only where exceptional circumstances are proved.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Exceptional Circumstances for Direct Filing
A party's voluntary withdrawal of a High Court stay application before a judge has been assigned, founded on a mere apprehension of delay, does not amount to the exceptional or special circumstances that justify filing the application directly in the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Leave of Court at Appellate Stage
A party may not be added to an appeal or application without the court first determining that the party's presence is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of the questions involved; joinder effected without leave of court is irregular and liable to be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Self-Executing Declaratory Orders
Self-executing declaratory orders are incapable of execution by execution proceedings and therefore cannot be stayed; an appeal against such orders may proceed without a stay of execution whether or not the appeal is likely to succeed.
Company Law — Separate Legal Personality — Advocate's Authority to Institute Proceedings
Where an advocate represented a body corporate or society before the trial court without any objection to authority being raised, authority to institute a related appeal or application is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, applying the separate legal personality principle in Salomon v Salomon.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose and Limits of a Stay
A stay of execution preserves the status quo and protects the right of appeal from being rendered nugatory; it must not be used to reverse, annul, undo or pass on the merits of the lower court's orders.
Civil Procedure — Binding Force of Court Orders — Disobedience and Contempt
A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction remains binding until set aside on appeal or review; a party who believes an order is wrong must obey, appeal, or apply to set it aside, and may not disregard it, for the belief that an order is erroneous is no defence to its disobedience.

Legislation cited (17)

  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions SI No.13-12 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions SI No.13-12 r.6
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions SI No.13-12 r.42
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions SI No.13-12 r.44(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.23
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.10 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Act s.38
  • Civil Procedure Act s.38(6)
  • Uganda Law Society Act Cap. 305 s.9
  • Uganda Law Society Act Cap. 305 s.16
  • Uganda Law Society (Election) Regulations 2016 reg.2
  • Uganda Law Society Regulations SI No. 267-1
  • Interpretation Act Cap. 2
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28

Cases cited (24)

  • Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd v NCB (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 285 of 2024)
  • Hamir Khuti v UMSC (Civil Application No. 1092 of 2023)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Byaruhanga Innocent and 4 Others v Musimenta Flora and Another (Civil Application No. 278 of 2019)
  • Aids Health Foundation v Dr. Stephen Mirembe Kizito (Civil Application No. 146 of 2014)
  • Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
  • Navichandra Kakubhai v Kakubhai Kalidas (S.C.C.A No. 10 of 1994)
  • Haston (Nigeria) Ltd vs African Continental Bank PLC, SC 109,1998 (2002) LPCLR 1359 (SC)
  • Buikwe Coffee Estates Ltd & 2 Ors vs Lutabi [1962] EA 328
  • Caroline Turyatemba v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Akol Hellen Odeke v Okodel Umar (Election Appeal No. 6 of 2021)
  • Salim Jamal and Others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd and Others (S.C.C.A No. 64 of 1995)
  • Lombard Banking Kenya vs Shah Bhaichand [1960] E.A 969 (SCK)
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1998)
  • Justice Anup Singh Choudry v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2012)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Stanley Kangeth Kinjanjui vs Tony Ketter & Ors [2013]e KLR
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Planning & Anor vs Okiya Omtatah & 12 Ors, Civil Application No. E 304 of 2023 (CA), [2027] KECA 1375 (KLR)
  • Enock Awasabi vs E.A. Accam Esquire & Anor, Civil Appeal No. J4/4/2011 [2013]JELR 68589 (SC)
  • Department of Transport vs Tasima (Pty) Ltd [2016]ZACC 39; 2017 (2) SA
  • Suleiman vs Amboseli Resort Ltd, [2004]2 KLR 589
  • Reliance Bank Ltd vs Norlake Investments Ltd [2002]1 DA 227
  • Jayndrakumar Devechand vs Haridas [1971] EACA 11
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.